WORLDVIEW

Doug Cassel's Commentaries

Listen to Doug Cassel 's Commentary

The consequence of the Times’ temerity was the arrest of its Beijing bureau investigator Zhao Yan, a Chinese citizen. Charged with revealing state secrets and with fraud, Mr. Zhao has languished in detention ever since. Last week he finally got his trial. Next month he will get his verdict—which experts gloomily predict will be “guilty.”

His prosecution is an outrage. It is essentially an effort by an authoritarian regime to criminalize journalism. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice have rightly interceded with their Chinese counterparts. After the President did so in March, the charges against Zhao were briefly dropped, only to be reinstated later.

But in denouncing Mr. Zhao’s trial, Washington overlooks some uncomfortable parallels with the military commission trials it plans for alleged terrorists at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba.

The Supreme Court is due to rule soon on one such trial, that of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. The main issues are whether denying Mr. Hamdan access to secret prosecution evidence violates military law, and whether denying him a hearing before a competent tribunal, to determine his status as a prisoner of war, combatant or civilian, violates the Geneva Convention.

There are critical distinctions between the trials of Zhao and Hamdan. Unlike journalism, terrorism is a heinous crime. Even conspiracy to commit terrorism, the main charge against Hamdan since there is apparently no evidence that he committed any terrorist act, is—if proved in a fair trial—a real crime.

But there are also disturbing similarities. For example:

• Pretrial detention without access to counsel. Zhao was held for 22 month before trial, apparently with little or no access to counsel. Hamdan has been held for four years. During the first two years he had no access to counsel.

• Secret evidence. Apparently most evidence against Zhao is itself deemed a state secret. At least some evidence against Hamdan is classified on national security grounds. Neither he nor his civilian attorney can see such evidence—even though any civilian defense attorney at Guantanamo must be an American with a “secret” security clearance. Although his military defense attorney may see the secret evidence, he may not discuss it with Hamdan or his civilian lawyer.

• Closed hearings. Zhao’s trial was closed to the press and public, but Zhao and his defense attorney were present. Some of Hamdan’s trial will be public. However, portions involving secret evidence may be closed, not only to the public, but even to Hamdan and his civilian lawyer. During pretrial hearings the prosecutors indicated that they intend to request that Hamdan be excluded from parts of his trial.

• Inconvenient Witnesses. The judges in Zhao’s trial reportedly declined to allow any witnesses to testify, partly on the ground that it would be inconvenient to bring in witnesses from other parts of China. Military commission trials at Guantanamo can also decline to summon witnesses where it would be inconvenient to bring them from far away.

• Independence and impartiality. Only a heroically naïve observer could view the judges in Zhao’s trial as independent of outside influence. Unfortunately, it is also difficult to defend to a skeptical world the impartiality of American military officers sitting in judgment on their alleged “enemies.” Moreover, the regulations deny military commissions essential elements of judicial independence. For example, any pretrial disposition that results in dismissal of a charge must be decided not by the commission, but by the military commander in charge.

• Discrimination. Zhao is evidently on trial only because he is Chinese. The Times’ Beijing bureau chief, an American, has not been charged. In contrast, Hamdan faces trial before a military commission only because he is not American—the Presidential order authorizes trials by military commission only for non-citizens. Both China and the U.S. thus discriminate on the basis of nationality, albeit in opposite directions. The authoritarian Chinese feel freer to repress their own than to provoke Congress by arresting a prominent American. In contrast, Washington is more willing to shortcut due process of law for foreigners, who cannot vote, than to risk provoking the electorate by subjecting American citizens to dubious trials.

In sum, the Chinese procedures are worse in most respects than those at Guantanamo. But the distance between the two is too close for comfort. In the eyes of the world, we look hypocritical, by holding the Chinese to international fair trial standards which we ourselves choose to violate.